Provided by the author(s) and University College Dublin Library in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite the published version when available. Title Redefining Unionism : a political perspective ; an academic perspective Authors(s) Nesbitt, Dermot; English, Richard Publication date 2001 Conference details This contains the revised text of two lectures presented as part of the seminar se-ries þÿ Redefining the union and the nation: new perspectives on political progress in Ireland , organised jointly by the Conference of University Rectors in Ireland and the Institute for British-Irish Studies. The lectures were presented in UCD on 4 May 2000. Series þÿIBIS Working Papers; 2; Redefining the union and the nation: new perspectives on political progress in Ireland Lecture Series; 2 Publisher University College Dublin. Institute for British-Irish Studies Item record/more information http://hdl.handle.net/10197/2187 Downloaded 2021-09-26T11:05:44Z The UCD community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters! (@ucd_oa) © Some rights reserved. For more information, please see the item record link above. REDEFINING UNIONISM —A POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE Dermot Nesbitt, MLA —AN ACADEMIC PERSPECTIVE Richard English IBIS working paper no. 2 REDEFINING UNIONISM —A POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE Dermot Nesbitt, MLA —AN ACADEMIC PERSPECTIVE Richard English No. 2 in the lecture series “Redefining the union and the nation: new perspectives on political progress in Ireland” organised in association with the Conference of University Rectors in Ireland Working Papers in British-Irish Studies No. 2, 2001 Institute for British-Irish Studies University College Dublin IBIS working papers No. 2, 2001 © the authors, 2001 ISSN 1649-0304 ABSTRACTS REDEFINING UNIONISM— A POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE The main unionist political demand in the years immediately after 1972 was for the return of the Northern Ireland parliament based on the principle of majority rule. Government-sponsored efforts to provide alternative solutions collapsed. More re- cently, attempts to resolve the problem on the basis of human rights and equality have been made, and the new unionist case is grounded largely on the belief that non-unionists should be persuaded that there is a place for them in Northern Ire- land. The Belfast Agreement offers hope of a real and honourable accommodation, even if there continue to be difficulties in its implementation. REDEFINING UNIONISM— AN ACADEMIC PERSPECTIVE The contrasting attitudes of unionists towards the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 and the Belfast Agreement of 1998 illustrate a significant change in unionist politics. The perspective of paramilitary groups has changed, and a section of unionism pre- pared to negotiate a deal with nationalists has emerged. This was a response inter alia to changes in the character of republicanism, to social and political change in the Republic and to devolution in Great Britain. The new unionism is, by compari- son with unionism in the past, more fluid, more complex internally and more articu- lately defended by intellectuals. Although it can also be accommodated to a devel- oping rapprochement between Ireland and Great Britain, there is little evidence of the emergence of a stable sense of communal self-confidence. Publication information This contains the revised text of two lectures presented as part of the seminar se- ries “Redefining the union and the nation: new perspectives on political progress in Ireland”, organised jointly by the Conference of University Rectors in Ireland and the Institute for British-Irish Studies. The lectures were presented in UCD on 4 May 2000. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION Dermot Nesbitt, MLA, has been a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly since 1998 and is Junior Minister at the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minis- ter. A university lecturer by profession, he was a member of the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue and of the Ulster Unionist talks team at Castle Build- ings in 1996-98. Richard English is Professor of Politics at Queen’s University, Belfast. His books include Ernie O’Malley: IRA intellectual (Oxford University Press, 1998) and (with Graham Walker) Unionism in modern Ireland: new perspectives on politics and cul- ture (Macmillan Press, 1996). REDEFINING UNIONISM— A POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE Dermot Nesbitt I When I agreed to contribute to this lecture series my mind turned to a song from that famous musical Les miserables—a musical I have seen both in London and here at The Point. In one scene the star of the musical, Jean Val Jean, asks in song “Who am I?” One telling line is “If I speak I am condemned, if I stay silent I am damned.” Too often the easy road is to say nothing. Indeed I have often been asked, why are you in politics? My answer is simple—I enjoy politics. But as often as I am asked that question I am told what I should do—”don’t give in”, “stand firm”, “you live in history, think of the future”—to name but a few words of advice. However, it is more than enjoyment—there must be hope for a better future for all. We cannot subscribe to that phrase of Oscar Wilde, “Something was dead in all of us and what was dead was hope.” Not so indeed, unionism has come a long way over the past decades. It is the following questions that I have been asked to ad- dress today: What has been the traditional position of the Ulster Unionist Party? What reasons have there been for change? What main changes have there been in recent years? And, finally, what are the implications for relations within these is- lands? II The initial Ulster Unionist Party position before 1920 (properly called the Ulster Un- ionist Council)—we are not officially a political party, now there is an “Irishism” for you!—had been to reject any form of devolved (or self) government. However, the Northern Ireland parliament (Stormont) became in due course, as viewed by union- ists, a bulwark for the Union—even though it was accepted by unionists at the out- set that Northern Ireland was being marginalised from mainstream politics. Also, some non-unionists hoped that the separate parliament would lead to a united Ire- land. Unionists therefore sought for many years the return of a parliament, which, in their view, had been unfairly removed in March 1972. From that time there was much debate within unionism as to the best way forward—devolution/integration, majority rule/power sharing. Such continued debate had been to the detriment of the union- ist case and it could be contested, with some justification, that for many years since 1972 unionism had not a clear and focused policy, argued with consistency, convic- tion and clarity, to match the case presented by nationalists. IBIS WORKING PAPER NO. 2 IBIS WORKING PAPERS NO. 2, 2001 Nationalists’ position seemed clear. In 1978 the SDLP document Facing reality stated: ... the British Government should enter into immediate discussion with the Irish Gov- ernment in order to promote jointly matters of common concern to both parts of Ire- land. They should also develop jointly a programme for the harmonisation of the laws and services on both sides of the border. The “devolution/integration” debate had been a very divisive issue within unionism. In reality, however, these words lack precision. Any form of government below the Westminster level is devolved government. Equally, within certain parameters, there is no one unique form of government called “integration”. Essentially the dif- ference between the two views, when used in political debate, refers to whether or not an elected body at Stormont should or should not have the authority to make some of its own laws as Stormont had between 1921 and 1972. It is worth noting that the Government of Ireland Act (1920) gave no guarantee that Stormont would have the finance available to provide services comparable with Great Britain. At the time of the home rule bills it was estimated that there would be a financial surplus of income over expenditure of £5.7m and £1.9m for the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland respectively. Northern Ireland’s predicted surplus in reality was a deficit and public provision in general fell below GB standards, not be- cause the Ulsterman was conservative but because the government was chroni- cally short of money. Unionism believed, however, that the political gains of self- government more than outweighed any financial constraint. In the 1970s and 1980s what were the perceptions? Certainly unionist policy has always been aimed at securing and enhancing the Union. It was broadly accepted that social disobedience or a “unionist” terrorist campaign would not preserve the Union and thus clear policies were essential that would be reasonable, achievable, believable and convincing. It had not been a rarity for unionists to say: “we’re fin- ished”, “we’ve been sold down the river”, or “you’re not worth voting for”. Throughout the period 1974-95 there were at least eight significant attempts to re- store accountable democracy in Northern Ireland. These ranged from the power sharing executive of 1974 (headed by the late Brian Faulkner) to the Frameworks document of 1995. Though most Ulster Unionist Party leaders during this period were called “traitor” by some, I believe each leader did his best given the circum- stances; on each occasion the package was rejected by some grouping— governments, nationalists or unionists; and on each occasion unionism was worse off next time. An indication of thinking in the 1970s and 1980s can be obtained from the following quotes from leading politicians of the day. It would be improper and highly dangerous to our case for any party member to sug- gest or volunteer or hint at any deviation from or amendment to the main principles of our scheme ….